If your family lives in eastern Kentucky, they will be impacted by a collapse in the coal industry. McCain has not promised to bankrupt the coal industry nor has he claimed that his policies will cause energy prices to skyrocket. Obama has done both.

 

Where did he say it? Do you have proof that I can see...

 

I didn't say that McCain promised those things, but you are joking yourself if you don't think McCain has promised things that will help certain groups but cripple others....

Where did he say it? Do you have proof that I can see...

 

I didn't say that McCain promised those things, but you are joking yourself if you don't think McCain has promised things that will help certain groups but cripple others....

The Shock Audio Unearthed Obama Tells San Francisco He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry thread contains a video and an audio featuring Obama making these statements during the primaries. Obama's tax and spend proposals and his proposals to hit the coal industry hard will hurt every citizen in this country but in areas heavily dependent on coal mining, the impact will be devastating.

 

The mining industry may not employ nearly as many people as it once did but it still pumps large amounts of money into local economies and tax coffers. Many people who are not employed by the coal industry are indirectly dependent on it.

Been thinking about this and another area that Bush has really disappointed me is the whole tone of his Presidency.

 

It has not been uplifting or positive.

 

There has been no call to improve as a nation. He has not really gone to great measures to work with the Democrats who admittingly weren't wanting to work with him either.

 

He never really was able to overcome the Dems charges that he stole the election in 2000 and turn his Presidency into a positive time in this country regarding the political tone.

I didn't see where he said it was in the Middle East.

 

:laugh: I didn't say "in" the middle east, I said not the middle east, as in two entirely different cultures and histories.

I think history will (correctly) judge him to be a reckless president. This argument that time will tell if his course of action was correct is not a proper way to assess Bush's judgment. The truth is that there were plenty of people who warned him that toppling the government in Iraq was a dangerous undertaking that could tie our forces down indefinitely and at great cost. I believe the decision to invade was taken very lightly and I support that conclusion by noting that troop levels were substantially below levels prescribed by simulation and senior military officers and that post-invasion planning was, at best, woefully inadequate. If the President truly foresaw the difficulties, sacrifice, and cost of the invasion and subsequent operation, he certainly didn't adequately prepare the nation or the military. If, by some miracle (and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives), Iraq ever does turn into a stable democracy, I wouldn't call that the result of brilliant vision. I would call it a dangerous, ill-conceived gamble paying off against impossibly long odds.

 

 

Crud H, at least be reasonable in your posts. You make it seem like everyone other than W thought it was wrong to invade Iraq, which was definitely not the case. Yes there were some, but not all. Could you have known at the time which ones were right and which ones were wrong, or are you using the benefit of hindsight in your scathing assessment of Bush? You make it seem like every senior military officer told him he wasn't committing enough troops for the invasion phase, which was definitely not the case. Not everyone supported the Colin Powell philosophy and for what its worth Powell was wrong, way wrong in the number of troops required during the invasion phase. I do agree with you that some of the post invasion phase decisions were wrong. Whether is fair to say he should have known to have done differently is beyond my knowledge on that matter.

 

 

 

You stated that Bush didn't adequately prepare the nation for the task. You mustn't have been listening. I specifically remember his telling us on national tv that it was going to be a longcostly and difficult struggle but would be worth it. You stated that he didn't adequately prepare the military. If you meant in being militarily prepared in capability and size, you may want to check and see just which President dramatically cut the military in size and capability so he could spend the "peace dividend" on his agenda (hint, it wasn't W). If you meant that he didn't warn the military that they were in for a tough and long fight and struggle, wrong again. At no time did W ever tell the military that the Iraq mission was going to be easy.

 

I'm glad that you can determine that Bush made the decision lightly. Not sure how you could have come to that decision without being in Bush's head at the time he made the decision.

 

I don't mind having discussions with reasonable people trying to look at things with an open mind, but your quoted post makes it tough to do so. And if things turn out in Iraq they way I hope they do and think they will, I won't care whether Bush did it as part of a brilliant vision or a big ill conceived gamble. If democracy flourishes and brings more open government, freer people, a thriving economy, and with those things a more stable region to which we have to devote much less of our resources in the long run, I think historians will look back and say he was a great President. You may not, but then again, I said in my post historians, not partisans.

Crud H, at least be reasonable in your posts. You make it seem like everyone other than W thought it was wrong to invade Iraq, which was definitely not the case. Yes there were some, but not all. Could you have known at the time which ones were right and which ones were wrong, or are you using the benefit of hindsight in your scathing assessment of Bush? You make it seem like every senior military officer told him he wasn't committing enough troops for the invasion phase, which was definitely not the case. Not everyone supported the Colin Powell philosophy and for what its worth Powell was wrong, way wrong in the number of troops required during the invasion phase. I do agree with you that some of the post invasion phase decisions were wrong. Whether is fair to say he should have known to have done differently is beyond my knowledge on that matter.

 

 

 

You stated that Bush didn't adequately prepare the nation for the task. You mustn't have been listening. I specifically remember his telling us on national tv that it was going to be a longcostly and difficult struggle but would be worth it. You stated that he didn't adequately prepare the military. If you meant in being militarily prepared in capability and size, you may want to check and see just which President dramatically cut the military in size and capability so he could spend the "peace dividend" on his agenda (hint, it wasn't W). If you meant that he didn't warn the military that they were in for a tough and long fight and struggle, wrong again. At no time did W ever tell the military that the Iraq mission was going to be easy.

 

I'm glad that you can determine that Bush made the decision lightly. Not sure how you could have come to that decision without being in Bush's head at the time he made the decision.

 

I don't mind having discussions with reasonable people trying to look at things with an open mind, but your quoted post makes it tough to do so. And if things turn out in Iraq they way I hope they do and think they will, I won't care whether Bush did it as part of a brilliant vision or a big ill conceived gamble. If democracy flourishes and brings more open government, freer people, a thriving economy, and with those things a more stable region to which we have to devote much less of our resources in the long run, I think historians will look back and say he was a great President. You may not, but then again, I said in my post historians, not partisans.

 

A pretty good indication for not invading Iraq was the fact that UN investigators found no WMD's. I thought that was the reason for invading in the first place, and it's just me, but if I were invading for that reason, I would make 100% sure that they did have WMD's before wasting countless lives and billions of dollars on a war that we can't win.

A pretty good indication for not invading Iraq was the fact that UN investigators found no WMD's. I thought that was the reason for invading in the first place, and it's just me, but if I were invading for that reason, I would make 100% sure that they did have WMD's before wasting countless lives and billions of dollars on a war that we can't win.

 

 

We have went over this but will again.

 

Saddam himself said he went out of his way to convince everyone that he had WMD's. He did it because he thought it would be a deterrent to Iran invading.

 

He said he wanted and did things to make sure people believed he had WMD's.

 

This came out of his interrogation after capture.

 

ONLY when he realized that the US was the danger of invading did he backpedal on these issues.

 

By then, I don't believe much of anyone was believing him. They were believing the mountain of evidence he had CREATED to make people believe.

A pretty good indication for not invading Iraq was the fact that UN investigators found no WMD's. I thought that was the reason for invading in the first place, and it's just me, but if I were invading for that reason, I would make 100% sure that they did have WMD's before wasting countless lives and billions of dollars on a war that we can't win.

 

 

Google "UN inspection of Iraq for WMDs" and you will find many, many articles discussing Hussein's repeated efforts to prevent the UN inspectors from being able to freely inspect Iraq. You make it seem as if Hussein totally cooperated with the inspectors, they inspected everywhere they wanted to, could not find anything and then Bush just choose to invade anyway. Which is about as far from the truth as I am from being good looking and slim. There was no way of being 100% certain with Hussein being an obstructionist and there was too much at risk to not invade without knowing for certain either way. This whole mess could possibly have been avoided if Hussein had fully complied with the UN resolutions.

Crud H, at least be reasonable in your posts. You make it seem like everyone other than W thought it was wrong to invade Iraq, which was definitely not the case. Yes there were some, but not all. Could you have known at the time which ones were right and which ones were wrong, or are you using the benefit of hindsight in your scathing assessment of Bush? You make it seem like every senior military officer told him he wasn't committing enough troops for the invasion phase, which was definitely not the case. Not everyone supported the Colin Powell philosophy and for what its worth Powell was wrong, way wrong in the number of troops required during the invasion phase. I do agree with you that some of the post invasion phase decisions were wrong. Whether is fair to say he should have known to have done differently is beyond my knowledge on that matter.

 

 

Before Iraq, we were not a nation that started large-scale, unprovoked wars. You note that support for the Iraq war was widespread, thereby providing cover for the President's decision to invade. Why wouldn't support for the war be widespread when the administration repeatedly and deliberately oversold the razor-thin evidence linking Saddam's Iraq to 9/11. Geez, you had Cheney going on Meet the Press and making innuendo-laced statements all but directly saying Saddam was involved. In the emotion-charged environment following 9/11, why should it surprise you that the majority of Americans (and therefore the politicians who represented them) supported a war against Iraq? Sixths months after the beginning of the Iraq war, 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration knew better than this, but chose to perpetuate that notion because it supported their desire for 'regime change' which dated to the earliest days of the Bush presidency in early 2001. There certainly was no urgent need to invade when we did, no intelligence evidence of an imminent threat to the United States (as was forcefully implied by the President, Condoleeza Rice, et al). The only real reason was that political support would eventually wane and the initiative would be lost. I don't rely on hindsight for my certainty--I was extremely apprehensive about getting involved in an inherently hostile Muslim country without a darn good (and certain) reason. I trusted what I was hearing, but held that the President better have his facts straight before taking us down the path of starting an unprovoked war. I later found out that he really did not, and that his administration downplayed any doubts from the intelligence apparatus.

 

As far as your comments about force size, yes, it is obvious we had more than enough boots on the ground to knock off Saddam's poorly-equipped, poorly-trained Army. That is a trivial point. We probably could have kicked their tails with 1/2 of the force we had. That's not the point. With a military as sophisticated as ours, bringing brute, indiscriminate force is not a problem. What is a problem, and what Powell, Shinseki, the Desert Crossing simulation pointed out, is that it takes far more troops to stabilize a large, lawless country than it takes to knock off a second rate Army armed with obsolete Russian equipment. You seem willing to give Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt because there might have plausibly been at least one military man in the room who endorsed the plan. Leadership is not finding a token "expert" to validate your pre-ordained plan just before you ram it down everyone's throats. It involves getting into the details and using careful judgment. Furthermore, undertaking an enterprise as dangerous as invading a hostile country on the other side of the world (with limited international support) encourages erring on the side of being conservative (i.e. more forces than necessary to do the job), not less. So far, I haven't heard of any military leader in an advisory role during the war's planning who said he lobbied for fewer troops, but was overruled.

 

 

 

 

 

You stated that Bush didn't adequately prepare the nation for the task. You mustn't have been listening. I specifically remember his telling us on national tv that it was going to be a longcostly and difficult struggle but would be worth it. You stated that he didn't adequately prepare the military. If you meant in being militarily prepared in capability and size, you may want to check and see just which President dramatically cut the military in size and capability so he could spend the "peace dividend" on his agenda (hint, it wasn't W). If you meant that he didn't warn the military that they were in for a tough and long fight and struggle, wrong again. At no time did W ever tell the military that the Iraq mission was going to be easy.

 

 

I listened. I heard a lot of "It's going to be a lot of hard work". I bet I heard the President say that ten times. Problem is, statements like that fit the textbook definition of triteness and just don't convey very much meaning. His actions weren't consistent with a Commander in Chief who believed that he had just committed the country to a six-year (so far) open-ended military committment. It was only well after receiving numerous warnings that the military was near the breaking point (December 2006, literally years after the invasion) that the President proposed increasing the size of our ground forces. Were those the actions of a leader who accurately foresaw the duration of the struggle and adequately prepared the military? Three years after the war started? Cheney told the American people that we "would be greeted as liberators". Administration estimates for the cost of the war were off by well over an order of magnitude. The President pulled that ridiculous stunt on the aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Were those the actions of an administration that foresaw the difficulties and adequately prepared the nation for the task?

 

 

 

I'm glad that you can determine that Bush made the decision lightly. Not sure how you could have come to that decision without being in Bush's head at the time he made the decision.

 

I don't mind having discussions with reasonable people trying to look at things with an open mind, but your quoted post makes it tough to do so. And if things turn out in Iraq they way I hope they do and think they will, I won't care whether Bush did it as part of a brilliant vision or a big ill conceived gamble. If democracy flourishes and brings more open government, freer people, a thriving economy, and with those things a more stable region to which we have to devote much less of our resources in the long run, I think historians will look back and say he was a great President. You may not, but then again, I said in my post historians, not partisans.

 

 

Since you seem eager to characterize me as a partisan because I am deeply disappointed about the war and its conduct, let me ask you a question: What defines partisanship? The majority of the Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake. The majority of Americans think they were deliberately misled by the Bush administration in the runup to the war. I would argue that since my position is well aligned with the majority of Americans, and yours is decidedly a fringe view, you may need to re-think your ideas about partisanship.

I view him as a complete failure. The War on "terror" was a joke and we have accomplished nothing at all. After 9/11 we said it was Afghanistatn and went over to fight them, then half way into that we decide we want Iraq to have freedom and go over to Iraq and start a War. It made no sense at the time and it still doesn't. Bush is an idiot and has ruined this country. He has been responsible for many soldier deaths for putting them where they didn't have to be. I stand firm in believing that the unfortunate events of 9/11 were a conspiracy by the government and Bush knew it was going to happen.

 

Honestly I do believe it was a conspiracy set up by the government (maybe not by Bush, but by the government and Bush knew about it). I really don't follow all the websites or video's or pictures, and what not saying it was a conspiracy but in my heart, I honestly believe that. I don't know why, it just seems very weird, the whole thing. The building collapsing and all of it. I believe there is way more to 9/11 than we will ever know.

 

You can't be serious!!

 

1) Bush is smarter than probably 95% of all those on this board, myself and most likely yourself included. To call him an idiot is insane.

 

2) Believing that the government purposely killed all those innocent American civilians on 9/11 is disgusting. That is one of the most un-American unpatriotic things you could ever say. It's flat out embarrassing that people really believe that garbage.

Before Iraq, we were not a nation that started large-scale, unprovoked wars. You note that support for the Iraq war was widespread, thereby providing cover for the President's decision to invade. Why wouldn't support for the war be widespread when the administration repeatedly and deliberately oversold the razor-thin evidence linking Saddam's Iraq to 9/11. Geez, you had Cheney going on Meet the Press and making innuendo-laced statements all but directly saying Saddam was involved. In the emotion-charged environment following 9/11, why should it surprise you that the majority of Americans (and therefore the politicians who represented them) supported a war against Iraq? Sixths months after the beginning of the Iraq war, 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration knew better than this, but chose to perpetuate that notion because it supported their desire for 'regime change' which dated to the earliest days of the Bush presidency in early 2001. There certainly was no urgent need to invade when we did, no intelligence evidence of an imminent threat to the United States (as was forcefully implied by the President, Condoleeza Rice, et al). The only real reason was that political support would eventually wane and the initiative would be lost. I don't rely on hindsight for my certainty--I was extremely apprehensive about getting involved in an inherently hostile Muslim country without a darn good (and certain) reason. I trusted what I was hearing, but held that the President better have his facts straight before taking us down the path of starting an unprovoked war. I later found out that he really did not, and that his administration downplayed any doubts from the intelligence apparatus.

 

As far as your comments about force size, yes, it is obvious we had more than enough boots on the ground to knock off Saddam's poorly-equipped, poorly-trained Army. That is a trivial point. We probably could have kicked their tails with 1/2 of the force we had. That's not the point. With a military as sophisticated as ours, bringing brute, indiscriminate force is not a problem. What is a problem, and what Powell, Shinseki, the Desert Crossing simulation pointed out, is that it takes far more troops to stabilize a large, lawless country than it takes to knock off a second rate Army armed with obsolete Russian equipment. You seem willing to give Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt because there might have plausibly been at least one military man in the room who endorsed the plan. Leadership is not finding a token "expert" to validate your pre-ordained plan just before you ram it down everyone's throats. It involves getting into the details and using careful judgment. Furthermore, undertaking an enterprise as dangerous as invading a hostile country on the other side of the world (with limited international support) encourages erring on the side of being conservative (i.e. more forces than necessary to do the job), not less. So far, I haven't heard of any military leader in an advisory role during the war's planning who said he lobbied for fewer troops, but was overruled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I listened. I heard a lot of "It's going to be a lot of hard work". I bet I heard the President say that ten times. Problem is, statements like that fit the textbook definition of triteness and just don't convey very much meaning. His actions weren't consistent with a Commander in Chief who believed that he had just committed the country to a six-year (so far) open-ended military committment. It was only well after receiving numerous warnings that the military was near the breaking point (December 2006, literally years after the invasion) that the President proposed increasing the size of our ground forces. Were those the actions of a leader who accurately foresaw the duration of the struggle and adequately prepared the military? Three years after the war started? Cheney told the American people that we "would be greeted as liberators". Administration estimates for the cost of the war were off by well over an order of magnitude. The President pulled that ridiculous stunt on the aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Were those the actions of an administration that foresaw the difficulties and adequately prepared the nation for the task?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you seem eager to characterize me as a partisan because I am deeply disappointed about the war and its conduct, let me ask you a question: What defines partisanship? The majority of the Americans think the Iraq war was a mistake. The majority of Americans think they were deliberately misled by the Bush administration in the runup to the war. I would argue that since my position is well aligned with the majority of Americans, and yours is decidedly a fringe view, you may need to re-think your ideas about partisanship.

 

NoI don't characterize you as partisan because you are deeply disappointed in the war, I characterize you as partisan because you refuse, absolutely refuse to even consider the fact that there was intel supporting the presence of wmd's in Iraq; you refuse to consider the fact that there were military people supporting Bush's troop size decision (you rather trite comment from above: "might have plausibly been at least one military man in the room who endorsed the plan" is a perfect example of the partisanship showing through); you refuse to consider the fact that Hussein, not Bush, violated the UN resolution time after time after time, and had Hussein complied and allowed the UN inspectors to have complete and unfettered access, then perhaps this mess could have been avoided. Rather, because of your partisan hatred for Bush that comes through as clear as a bell on a cold January night, you refuse to consider those facts and the possibility Bush made the decision he did, not because he was some cowboy, not be cause he was trying to get revenge against Hussein, but rather because he felt he had no choice but to invade Iraq to protect America from harm down the road. From people in the military that I know that have been assigned to Camp David and have gotten to know him, they tell me he seems to have a deep compassion and caring for the military. I find it very hard to believe that someone with that affinity for the military, that someone whose father almost died in WWII, would take the loss of military lives as callously as you believed he did. Yes, I believe you are partisan, but it has nothing to do with being disappointed in the war. Heck I am disappointed is the war, how can anyone not read about the deaths of young Americans and not feel disappointment? No, your partisanship is revealed by the way you judge Bush.

It always take a few terms later to judge how a past President fared. I'll hold judgement